Everton article on espn soccernet

[Coach]

Hmmm.... I get the Gibson love in but in my opinion Fellaini is clearly infinitely better in that role. If we don't play both and anyone was to be sacrificed out of the two it would be Gibson for me.

 

[throughthewindandthedrain]

Hmmm.... I get the Gibson love in but in my opinion Fellaini is clearly infinitely better in that role. If we don't play both and anyone was to be sacrificed out of the two it would be Gibson for me.

another thing the article ignores is an injury to Fellaini or Gibson, either of them with a squad player can work, Fellaini gone and the squad again looks weak. Fellaini definitely suffering in people's eyes because I think he can play most of these roles as well or better than what we have

 

[Coach]

I find that a pretty poor article to be honest. It's making out like Fellaini is a big carthorse in the mould of Emile Heskey, which is just ridiculous.

Fellaini is a fine footballer in terms of technical ability - the ball sticks to him and he has very good distribution, whilst also being a destructive defensive presence. Any Everton side without him in midfield will be weaker, regardless of formation.

The problem with an article like this is that it's misinformed and based largely on his misuse as a forward during the last two seasons. The more obvious switch out is Osman, allowing Fellaini and Gibson to form a barrier in front of the defense.

Not only that, I think this "pure football" discussion with Martinez is very premature. He played 35 games with a grock of a forward named Franco di Santo last year. We'll play a 4-5-1 more often than not this year.

Absolutely.

Also, our bench will be the strongest it has been in years. If we put out that team above then we will be choosing from Robles, Hibbert, Oviedo, Hetinga, Deulofeu, Osman, Barkley, Naismith, Kone and Anichebe which won't be easy either. Stones, Duffy and Vellios won't get near that I'm afraid.

 

[Yankfootball1]

It depends on what part of the pitch your operating in. Around the 18yrd box osman is superior to Fellaini in this as its usually ltd space and tight situations. Deeper in the midfield Fellaini is superior to osman. It could well depend how the game is going. Considering a lot moaned of moyes using different options/subs etc maybe we should be excited were looking like we may have options for once.

That was what I took away from the article to be honest - we have better options to adjust the formations than last year, and a manager that may make some tactical adjustments. I do not want to se Fellaine leave. I love him as a player and feel he should be playing alongside Gibson in a deep lying midfielders role. The one set-up I don't think suits us is a true 4-3-3 as I don't think we have that true do it all midfielder that could control the game in a 4-3-3 like Pirlo or Iniesta.

 

[throughthewindandthedrain]

That was what I took away from the article to be honest - we have better options to adjust the formations than last year, and a manager that may make some tactical adjustments. I do not want to se Fellaine leave. I love him as a player and feel he should be playing alongside Gibson in a deep lying midfielders role. The one set-up I don't think suits us is a true 4-3-3 as I don't think we have that true do it all midfielder that could control the game in a 4-3-3 like Pirlo or Iniesta.

assume that is the signing we will be looking for in long term but think its going to take awhile to find. What is maybe worth looking at are players who have been pushed wide at club level who would thrive if we put them in that role. Sheedy springs to mind and to some extent Arteta.

 

[pablo_p]

Very strange article, IMO. Fellaini would walk into most, if not all, midfields in this league.

The only change we need to make to our squad is to drop Fellaini alongside Gibson, as so:

Howard

Coleman Jagielka Distin Baines

Fellaini Gibson

Mirallas Osman Pienaar

Jelavic​

That side would then be easily adapted to the following, when attacking and/or in possession:

Howard

Coleman Jagielka Distin Baines

Gibson

Fellaini Osman

Mirallas Jelavic Pienaar​

With Coleman and Baines occupying the flanks as and when needed.

Yesterday, we looked very good. Yes, ****e opposition, but we completely dominated them. Our fullbacks are integral to how we play, a back 3 would render them much less effective, IMO.

 

[Traffie]

Do you not remember city playing three at the back against us and losing 2-0?

 

[Traffie]

.....

 

[TX Bill]

I must be one of the only Evertonians that thinks we won't be selling Fellaini. I'd rather we keep him. Not that we couldn't use the 30M though.

 

[Elong]

I must be one of the only Evertonians that thinks we won't be selling Fellaini. I'd rather we keep him. Not that we couldn't use the 30M though.

With you Bill. Whether we want to keep him and whether he stays is another matter though, money talks.

 

[West]

4-2-3-1 with a double pivot of fellaini and Gibson is our best formation imo good in defense retain the ball well and good fluidity in our attacks

 

[johnnydawg68]

Count me as someone who has been calling for us to play 3 at the back and utilize Baines and Coleman as out and out wingbacks. It makes perfect sense with our personnel and it's exciting football that allows us to attack from various angles on the pitch. Plus if we're the only ones in the PL doing it, it makes much tougher to prepare for.

I'm fully prepared that Fellani is gone. And if so, we'll be fine. I'm more hesitant to lose Baines even though Oviedo is a fine footballer and would do a job for us. But he's not Baines. No one is.

 

[WA Toffee]

I'm not a fan of 3 at the back. If the opposition is playing one up front, as most teams do nowadays, it is really leaving 2 spare centre backs waiting to see how the play is developing before going to mark someone. This leaves the likelihood of a smart attacking midfielder either pulling them out of position and creating gaps in the centre, or not making the forward run at all which leaves the other 2 centre halfs doing nothing while they have unmarked men outside the box.

The only time I would comtemplate using it is if the opposition plays with 2 centre forwards - we can mark both and have a spare man to mop up or cover either full back position

 

[Christiffa25]

One of the main reasons for playing 3 at the back is so that you can install wing backs into your team and attack through them. We already have in Coleman and baines 2 players who play as wing backs BUT remarkably they both do it from full back posistion!

Basically they both already do that job from full back, which must be brilliant for any manager. So hopefully we don't really use the 3 at the back system, unless its a plan b/c/d ect.....don't like it and I've not seen any proof that it works in the PL.

Having said that, having the ability to switch to 3 at the back in a game like Newcastle at home last season, when they were lumping long balls to 2 big guys upfront may just be a good tactical weapon to have!